14.

Legal Matters

Litigation

In addition to the matters referenced in this Note 14, the Company is party to certain legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, including legal actions arising out of services rendered by its various operations, personal injury and employment disputes. Management does not expect that these other legal actions will have a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company.

On May 10, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled Lisa Rindfleisch et al. v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company in which five former employees allege wage and hour law violations. On October 8, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to transfer the venue of the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On April 13, 2011, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the action as a collective action. The former employees claim they were paid pursuant to "an unlawful hybrid" compensation plan that paid them on both a per visit and an hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt status and entitling them to overtime pay. The plaintiffs allege continuing violations of federal and state law and seek damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as under the New York Labor Law and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. Plaintiffs seek class certification of similar employees and seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA, six years under the New York statute and two years under the North Carolina statute.

On June 11, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled Catherine Wilkie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against the Company in which a former employee alleges wage and hour violations under the FLSA and California law. The complaint alleges that the Company paid some of its employees on both a per visit and hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt status and entitling them to overtime pay. The complaint further alleges that California employees were subject to violations of state laws requiring meal and rest breaks, accurate wage statements and timely payment of wages. The plaintiff seeks class certification, attorneys' fees, back wages, penalties, and damages going back three years on the FLSA claim and four years on the state wage and hour claims.

Given the preliminary stage of the Rindfleisch and Wilkie lawsuits, the Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from these proceedings on the business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company. The Company does not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made for these lawsuits at this time. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these lawsuits.

On July 29, 2010, a collective action complaint entitled Nelson Alleman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Gainesville Division, against the Company in which a former employee, employed as a certified respiratory therapist, alleged overtime wage violations under the FLSA. The plaintiff sought collective action certification of similar employees, attorneys' fees, back wages and damages going back three years under the FLSA. The parties have settled this lawsuit and, on May 3, 2011, the court dismissed the matter with prejudice.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection with the Company's acquisition ("Merger") of Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. ("Odyssey"). The first, entitled Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System v. Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. et al., was filed on May 27, 2010 in the County Court, Dallas County, Texas. The second, entitled Eric Hemminger et al. v. Richard Burnham et al., was filed on June 9, 2010 in the District Court, Dallas, Texas. The third, entitled John O. Hansen v. Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. et al., was filed on July 2, 2010 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. All three lawsuits name the Company, GTO Acquisition Corp., Odyssey and the members of Odyssey's board of directors as defendants. All three lawsuits are brought by purported stockholders of Odyssey, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of stockholders, alleging that Odyssey's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger by failing to maximize shareholder value and that the Company and Odyssey aided and abetted the alleged breaches. On September 28, 2010, plaintiff in the Hemminger action filed a motion for consolidation in the District Court, seeking to consolidate the Hemminger action with the Pompano Beach action. On October 8, 2010, the District Court granted plaintiff's motion to consolidate and transferred the Hemminger action to County Court No. 5 in Dallas County, Texas. On October 12, 2010, Gentiva entered a general denial with respect to the material allegations in both the Pompano Beach and Hemminger complaints. On December 16, 2010, defendants in the actions executed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with plaintiffs Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System, Eric Hemminger and John O. Hansen reflecting an agreement in principle to settle each of the actions for additional disclosures which were included in Odyssey's Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A, filed on July 9, 2010. Defendants also agreed not to contest an application for attorneys' fees to be made by plaintiffs, which application shall not exceed $675,000. The settlement remains subject to notice to the putative class and court approval.

On November 2, 2010, a putative shareholder class action complaint, captioned Endress v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 10-CV-5064, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The action, which names Gentiva and certain current and former officers as defendants, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company's participation in the Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment System ("HH PPS"). The complaint alleges that the Company's public disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company improperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits to patients for the purposes of triggering higher reimbursement rates under the HH PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in the price of Gentiva's common stock during the period between July 31, 2008 and July 20, 2010. On January 21, 2011, the Minneapolis Police Relief Association (the "MPRA") moved to intervene as a named plaintiff in the action and further requested that, to the extent its motion was granted, the Court appoint it lead plaintiff. On February 7, 2011, the defendants filed a limited objection to the motion to intervene and, on February 17, 2011, the MPRA responded. On July 19, 2011, the Court granted the MPRA's motion to intervene as a named plaintiff, but denied, without prejudice, its request to be appointed lead plaintiff. On July 25, 2011, plaintiff Endress filed a motion seeking to withdraw as plaintiff, and the MPRA renewed its motion seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint, and given the preliminary stage of this action, the Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from this action on the business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company. The Company does not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made for this action at this time. The defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously in this action.

On January 4, 2011, a shareholder derivative complaint, captioned Jacobs v. Malone et al., Civil Action No 11-CV-1102-9, was filed in Superior Court of DeKalb County in the State of Georgia. The action, which names Gentiva's current directors as defendants, alleges, among other things, that Gentiva's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to the Company. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Gentiva's board of directors had actual or constructive knowledge that the Company's public disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company improperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits to patients for the purpose of triggering higher reimbursement rates under HH PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in the price of Gentiva's common stock during the period between July 31, 2008 and July 20, 2010. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. On March 21, 2011, the action was stayed by stipulation among the parties pending a final decision on any motion to dismiss in the above-mentioned Endress action. Given the preliminary stage of the Jacobs action, the Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from this action on the business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company. The Company does not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made for this action at this time. The defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously in this action.

Indemnifications

Healthfield

Upon the closing of the acquisition of The Healthfield Group, Inc. ("Healthfield") on February 28, 2006, an escrow fund was created to cover potential claims by the Company after the closing. Covered claims, which are also subject to the Company's contractual indemnification rights, include, for example, claims relating to legal proceedings existing as of the closing date, taxes for the pre-closing periods and medical malpractice and workers' compensation claims relating to any act or event occurring on or before the closing date. The escrow fund initially consisted of 1,893,656 shares of Gentiva's common stock valued at $30 million and $5 million in cash. The first $5 million of any disbursements consist of shares of Gentiva's common stock; the next $5 million of any disbursements consist of cash; and any additional disbursements consist of shares of Gentiva's common stock. The escrow fund has been subject to releases of shares of Gentiva's common stock and cash in the escrow fund to certain principal stockholders of Healthfield, less the amount of claims the Company makes against the escrow fund. During the second quarter of 2011, the Company received 14,334 shares representing a fair value of approximately $0.4 million. The Company has received disbursements from the escrow fund from inception through May 27, 2011, when the final distribution from the escrow fund was made, totaling 152,974 shares of common stock representing fair value of approximately $3.1 million. The Company has recorded the shares received as treasury stock in the Company's consolidated balance sheets.

HME and IV Disposition

The Company has agreed to indemnify the Lincare Indemnified Parties (as such term is defined in the Asset Purchase Agreement dated as of February 1, 2010 ("APA") covering the sale on such date of the Company's HME and IV businesses) from any claims arising from (i) any breach of, or failure to perform, any representations, warranties, covenants and other obligations by certain of the Company's subsidiaries, as sellers under the APA, (ii) the Lincare Indemnified Parties' being required to assume or discharge any of certain specified excluded liabilities under the APA or (iii) the Lincare Indemnified Parties' being required to assume or discharge by operation of law any indebtedness, liability or obligation of certain of the Company's subsidiaries, as sellers under the APA, other than certain specified liabilities assumed by Lincare Inc. The representations, warranties, covenants and agreements made by the Company's subsidiaries in the APA generally survive for a period of two years from the closing date, except that certain specified representations and warranties survive for the applicable statute of limitations. The maximum aggregate liability of the Company for any breaches of representations and warranties contained in the APA is $14 million.

Government Matters

PRRB Appeal

In connection with the audit of the Company's 1997 cost reports, the Medicare fiscal intermediary made certain audit adjustments related to the methodology used by the Company to allocate a portion of its residual overhead costs. The Company filed cost reports for years subsequent to 1997 using the fiscal intermediary's methodology. The Company believed the methodology it used to allocate such overhead costs was accurate and consistent with past practice accepted by the fiscal intermediary; as such, the Company filed appeals with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board ("PRRB") concerning this issue with respect to cost reports for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. The Company's consolidated financial statements for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 had reflected use of the methodology mandated by the fiscal intermediary. In June 2003, the Company and its Medicare fiscal intermediary signed an Administrative Resolution relating to the issues covered by the appeals pending before the PRRB. Under the terms of the Administrative Resolution, the fiscal intermediary agreed to reopen and adjust the Company's cost reports for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 using a modified version of the methodology used by the Company prior to 1997. This modified methodology will also be applied to cost reports for the year 2000, which are currently under audit. The Administrative Resolution required that the process to (i) reopen all 1997 cost reports, (ii) determine the adjustments to allowable costs through the issuance of Notices of Program Reimbursement and (iii) make appropriate payments to the Company, be completed in early 2004. Cost reports relating to years subsequent to 1997 were to be reopened after the process for the 1997 cost reports was completed.

The fiscal intermediary completed the reopening of all 1997, 1998 and 1999 cost reports and determined that the adjustment to allowable costs aggregated $15.9 million which the Company has received and recorded as adjustments to net revenues in the fiscal years 2004 through 2006. The Company expects to finalize all items relating to the 2000 cost reports during 2011.

Senate Finance Committee Request

In a letter dated May 12, 2010, the United States Senate Finance Committee requested information from the Company regarding its Medicare utilization rates for therapy visits. The letter was sent to all publicly traded home healthcare companies mentioned in a Wall Street Journal article that explored the relationship between the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services home health policies and the utilization rates of some health agencies. The Company has responded to this request as well as to supplemental requests for information. The Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from this matter on the business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company. The Company does not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made for this matter at this time.

Subpoenas

In April 2003, the Company received a subpoena from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations ("OIG"). The subpoena sought information regarding the Company's implementation of settlements and corporate integrity agreements entered into with the government, as well as the Company's treatment on cost reports of employees engaged in sales and marketing efforts. In February 2004, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") seeking additional information related to the matters covered by the OIG subpoena. In early May 2010, the Company reached an agreement in principle, subject to final approvals, with the government to resolve this matter. Under the agreement, the Company agreed to pay the government $12.5 million, of which $9.5 million was recorded as a charge in the first nine months of 2010 with the remaining $3 million covered by a previously-recorded reserve. On May 24, 2011, a final settlement agreement in accordance with the earlier agreement in principle was entered into between the government and the Company resolving this matter and the Company paid the $12.5 million during the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On July 13, 2010, the SEC informed the Company that the SEC had commenced an investigation relating to the Company's participation in the Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment System, and, on July 16, 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC requesting certain documents in connection with its investigation. Similar to the Senate Finance Committee request, the SEC subpoena, among other things, focused on issues related to the number of and reimbursement received for therapy visits before and after changes in the Medicare reimbursement system, relationships with physicians, compliance efforts including compliance with fraud and abuse laws, and certain documents sent to the Senate Finance Committee. The Company is in the process of responding to the SEC's request. The Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from this matter on the business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company. The Company does not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made for this matter at this time.

Investigations Involving Odyssey

On February 14, 2008, Odyssey received a letter from the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Texas Attorney General's office notifying Odyssey that the Texas Attorney General was conducting an investigation concerning Medicaid hospice services provided by Odyssey, including its practices with respect to patient admission and retention, and requesting medical records of approximately 50 patients served by its programs in the State of Texas. Based on the limited information that Odyssey has at this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this investigation, the Texas Attorney General's views of the issues being investigated or any actions that the Texas Attorney General may take.

On May 5, 2008, Odyssey received a letter from the DOJ notifying Odyssey that the DOJ was conducting an investigation of VistaCare, Inc. ("VistaCare") and requesting that Odyssey provide certain information and documents related to the DOJ's investigation of claims submitted by VistaCare to Medicare, Medicaid and the U.S. government health insurance plan for active military members, their families and retirees, formerly the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services ("TRICARE"), from January 1, 2003 through March 6, 2008, the date Odyssey completed the acquisition of VistaCare. Odyssey has been informed by the DOJ and the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Texas Attorney General's Office that they are reviewing allegations that VistaCare may have billed the federal Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE programs for hospice services that were not reasonably or medically necessary or performed as claimed. The basis of the investigation is a qui tam lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas by a former employee of VistaCare. The lawsuit was unsealed on October 5, 2009 and served on Odyssey on January 28, 2010. In connection with the unsealing of the complaint, the DOJ filed a notice with the court declining to intervene in the qui tam action at such time. The Texas Attorney General also filed a notice of non-intervention with the court. These actions should not be viewed as a final assessment by the DOJ or the Texas Attorney General of the merits of this qui tam action. Odyssey continues to cooperate with the DOJ and the Texas Attorney General in their investigation. Based on the limited information that Odyssey has at this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the investigation, the DOJ's or Texas Attorney General's views of the issues being investigated, other than the DOJ's and Texas Attorney General's notice declining to intervene in the qui tam action, or any actions that the DOJ or Texas Attorney General may take.

On January 5, 2009, Odyssey received a letter from the Georgia State Health Care Fraud Control Unit notifying Odyssey that the Georgia State Health Care Fraud Unit was conducting an investigation concerning Medicaid hospice services provided by VistaCare from 2003 through 2007 and requesting certain documents. Odyssey is cooperating with the Georgia State Health Care Fraud Control Unit and has complied with the document request. Based on the limited information that Odyssey has at this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the investigation, the Georgia State Health Care Fraud Control Unit's views of the issues being investigated or any actions that the Georgia State Health Care Fraud Control Unit may take.

On February 2, 2009, Odyssey received a subpoena from the OIG requesting certain documents related to Odyssey's provision of continuous care services from January 1, 2004 through February 2, 2009. On September 9, 2009, Odyssey received a second subpoena from the OIG requesting medical records for certain patients who had been provided continuous care services by Odyssey during the same time period. Odyssey is cooperating with the OIG and has completed its subpoena production for the two aforementioned subpoenas. On June 24, 2011, Odyssey received a third subpoena from the OIG requesting medical records for certain patients who had been provided continuous care services by Odyssey during the same time period and is in the process of complying with this subpoena. Based on the limited information that Odyssey has at this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the investigation, the OIG's views of the issues being investigated or any actions that the OIG may take.

On February 23, 2010, Odyssey received a subpoena from the OIG requesting various documents and certain patient records of one of Odyssey's hospice programs relating to services performed from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2009. Odyssey is cooperating with the OIG and has completed its subpoena production. Based on the limited information that Odyssey has at this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the investigation, the OIG's views of the issues being investigated or any actions that the OIG may take.

During the quarter ended June 30, 2011 and in connection with the above investigations involving Odyssey, the Company has recorded a reserve of $18.5 million for its litigation exposure that is probable and estimable. Except for this specific reserve, the Company does not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time. Based on the limited information that Odyssey has at this time regarding the investigations, the Company is unable to predict the additional impact, if any, that the investigations may have on Odyssey's and the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.